From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a3ca574fc2007430 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,f41f1f25333fa601 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Ada and Automotive Industry Date: 1996/11/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 201017201 references: <55ea3g$m1j@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3280DA96.15FB@hso.link.com> <1996Nov6.210957.3070@ole.cdac.com> <5683sk$bsc@news.ccit.arizona.edu> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime Date: 1996-11-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: One more comment on Richard's post "> Well I do not think you know enough about GCC or GNAT for your skeptical > viewpoint to be significant." Is what I said before, by this I was reacting to what I thought was Richard's implication that somehow GCC was specifically unsuitable for code generation on the 8051. I think that GCC can do at least as good a job as any other C technology on this chip, and indeed I do not consider it to be such a difficult chip to generate code for -- I have seen lots worse! Richard's skepticism seems in fact less about GCC, than the whole idea of using C on such a processor. But I still think that the 8051 is not particularly more difficult than many other chips on which C is routinely used (the transputer for instance, hardly welcomes C!)